Point being terrorists don't have any religion, they kill human beings just to prove a point, to vent their anger. They don't have a deen iman. They only use the sectarian divide for their advantage.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

Muslims generally have been oppressed for the last couple of hundred years by various super power. Britain, France, Italy, the soviets and the Americans. Palestine, Kashmir, chechenya has seen brutal repression. Dictatorial regimes like Gadaffi, Mubarak, Asad, the house of saud are there to repress their own people Whislt serving their colonial masters. Yes this is still happening today. People are taking up arms and some times doing wrong. But they are fighting oppression with oppression. Too easy to lay the blame on the door of the people of Mali, or Somali, or Afghanistan etc. Much harder to ask why? For example Somali fishermen became pirates, why, afghans became fighters, why, first the Russians and then the whole world? Brutal oppression in Kashmir? Why are these civilised governmenets of your so eager to invade and oppress a people imposing your values upon them. Sure they will rise and fight as they have no choice. Due to lack of education and command they will commit heinous crimes against humanity but have you forgotten pictures from Abu gharaib prison - what the Americans were doing to prisoners. They were your civilised people. No war brings out the worst in people but I sincerely believe that after all this some better will come. After all ww1 and ww2 made Europe sit up and think. Now they don't want war but will asset strip Afghanistan and Iraq at will because its easy to kill a few uneducated Muslims. Your simplistic view of good against evil simply doesn't hold up!

Bro it aint my govt or your govt. I am an ordinary person like you with a family and trying hard to live a secure life. Yes colonialism was brutal for all non-European countries including the Islamic ones. China was one of the worst affected, so was India. Southeast Asia or Africa. But look at how China responded and became one of the strongest nations in the world. They achieved it through hard work. They did not behead members of the oppressive communist party. They worked with them. Yes there is a lot of injustice in Islamic countries..all of them. But beheading and terrorizing is hardly a sane solution. We need to work with our govts and societies to make things better just as the Chinese did. Thus its the duty of every rational individual and specially every sane Muslim to denounce these barbaric gangs whose most famous ability is not administration or social welfare but beheading and destruction.

It's not the mountains ahead, that wear you out...It's the grain of sand in your shoe.

No one is defending the terrorist filth here. The discussion has evolved a little mate.....now it is encompassing Iraq's future and the whole thread is in the context of Iraq itself.

Nouri Al Maliki is a f@cker.....he had the choice of building a cohesive society, a society which could have resisted these afterbirths as Iraqis. Instead Maliki's forces abandoned Mosul and Tikrit to run back in order to save their "brothers". If Saddam started the vicious cycle of sectarianism.....this Maliki and co. are doing a great job in sustaining it.

No one is claiming that the terrorist problem in Nigeria, Pakistan or Libya is caused by shias....in fact shias are often the target of extremism in Pakistan.

If you refer back to earlier posts you'd see that my whole point is that this is not a sectarian conflict. While false slogans might be sectarian, there is a strong undercurrent of regional geopolitics with secret organizations leading the way. Enough of this shia-sunni divisive propaganda. Iraq is a shia majority country and it oppresses its Sunnis. Saudi is a Sunni majority country and oppresses its Shias. Egypt is a Muslim majority country and oppresses its Christians etc etc. Its our culture thats at fault and not our sects.

It's not the mountains ahead, that wear you out...It's the grain of sand in your shoe.

Aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush has already set sail for the Gulf. A Bush is always involved, one way or the other

Edited by Felicius, 15 June 2014 - 11:21 AM.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

Bro it aint my govt or your govt. I am an ordinary person like you with a family and trying hard to live a secure life. Yes colonialism was brutal for all non-European countries including the Islamic ones. China was one of the worst affected, so was India. Southeast Asia or Africa. But look at how China responded and became one of the strongest nations in the world. They achieved it through hard work. They did not behead members of the oppressive communist party. They worked with them. Yes there is a lot of injustice in Islamic countries..all of them. But beheading and terrorizing is hardly a sane solution. We need to work with our govts and societies to make things better just as the Chinese did. Thus its the duty of every rational individual and specially every sane Muslim to denounce these barbaric gangs whose most famous ability is not administration or social welfare but beheading and destruction.

I don't think they were friends, at-least not after the take over of the US Embassy in Tehran, or the British sailors, or the American trekkers (spies).

US is changing their strategy; instead of supporting warring Arab countries against Iran, they are now beginning to support Iran opposing all of the others.

Wouldn't it be easier to support say Morocco, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and Indonesia, to get their work done and just let the others be, rather than support disagreeing countries to try and make Iran see their point? No one can see eye-to-eye with the Arabs when they themselves don't amongst themselves. Plus give a message to KSA to take their emotional blackmail and deal with it with their so called friends of the region, we don't care anymore.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

I don't think they were friends, at-least not after the take over of the US Embassy in Tehran, or the British sailors, or the American trekkers (spies).US is changing their strategy; instead of supporting warring Arab countries against Iran, they are now beginning to support Iran opposing all of the others.

Wouldn't it be easier to support say Morocco, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and Indonesia, to get their work done and just let the others be, rather than support disagreeing countries to try and make Iran see their point? No one can see eye-to-eye with the Arabs when they themselves don't amongst themselves. Plus give a message to KSA to take their emotional blackmail and deal with it with their so called friends of the region, we don't care anymore.

Some body please wake me up. Taking Hostage and free them peacefully , arresting trackers and releasing them .. And on the other hand they were calling for destruction of Israel and America.

When West saw a arise in Muslim self reliance and Muslims get self esteem teamed with Shah Faisal , Bhutto , Qadafi and even with Shah of Iran, they brought in Khumeni and push Muslim world in sectarian rift. Each they Iranian call to destroy USA and very same day US warship pass by 10 miles from their coast.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

You are looking for an escape by bringing other countries into it. Just like when Israelis are cornered or exposed, they would immediatelly point fingers at Muslims that Muslims do it worse than they did.

Every country has its own problems and roots of problems. You cant just compare oranges to apples and go blame free.

What I have stated above about Shia prime minister and the Shia populous is a fact not an opinion.

When Shia dictator rules Sunni Syria, for all of you Shias he is a good guy, even though he is just as cruel and heartless as Saddam. Yet Sadam, Qadafi are bad guys because they are Sunnis.

Let me sum it up for you and your blind bias.

The system of Godlessness can work, but the system of injustice never works. It was said by your own "Imam" Ali Ra.

Walk away if you want toit's ok, if you need toyou can run, but you can never hideFrom the shadow that's creeping up beside youThere's a magic running through your soulBut you can't have it all

Militant group ISIS posted photos online that appear to show its fighters shooting dead dozens of captured Iraqi soldiers in a province north of the capital Baghdad. Associated Press

The Islamic militants who overran cities and towns in Iraq last week posted graphic photos that appeared to show their gunmen massacring scores of captured Iraqi soldiers, while the prime minister vowed Sunday to "liberate every inch" of captured territory.

The pictures on a militant website appear to show masked fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, loading the captives onto flatbed trucks before forcing them to lie face-down in a shallow ditch with their arms tied behind their backs. The final images show the bodies of the captives soaked in blood after being shot at several locations.

Chief military spokesman Lt. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi confirmed the photos' authenticity and said he was aware of cases of mass murder of captured Iraqi soldiers in areas held by ISIS. He told The Associated Press that an examination of the images by military experts showed that about 170 soldiers were shot to death by the militants after their capture.

Captions on the photos showing the soldiers after they were shot say "hundreds have been liquidated," but the total could not immediately be verified.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the ISIS militants' claim of killing the Iraqi troops "is horrifying and a true depiction of the bloodlust that those terrorists represent."

She added that a claim that 1,700 were killed could not be confirmed by the U.S.

On Friday, UN human rights chief Navi Pillay warned against "murder of all kinds" and other war crimes in Iraq, saying the number killed in recent days may run into the hundreds. She said in a statement that her office had received reports that militants rounded up and killed Iraqi soldiers as well as 17 civilians in a single street in Mosul. Her office also heard of "summary executions and extrajudicial killings" after ISIS militants overran Iraqi cities and towns, she said.

The grisly images could sap the morale of Iraq's security forces, but they could also heighten sectarian tensions. Thousands of Shias are already heeding a call from their most revered spiritual leader to take up arms against the Sunni militants who have swept across the north in the worst instability in Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

ISIS has vowed to take the battle to Baghdad and cities farther south housing revered Shia shrines.

Defences bolstered around Baghdad

Although the government bolstered defences around Baghdad, a series of explosions inside the capital killed at least 19 people and wounded more than 40, police and hospital officials said.

Security at the U.S. Embassy was strengthened and some staff members sent elsewhere in Iraq and to neighbouring Jordan, the State Department said. A military official said about 150 Marines have been sent to Baghdad to help with embassy security.

While the city of 7 million is not in any immediate danger of falling to the militants, food prices have risen — twofold in some cases — because of transportation disruptions on the main road heading north from the capital. The city is under a nighttime curfew that begins at 10 p.m.

In a fiery speech to volunteers south of Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed to regain territory captured last week by the ISIS.

"We will march and liberate every inch they defaced, from the country's northernmost point to the southernmost point," he said. The volunteers responded with Shia chants.

On Saturday, hundreds of armed Shia men paraded through the streets of Baghdad in response to a call by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for Iraqis to defend their country. ISIS has vowed to attack Baghdad but its advance to the south seems to have stalled in recent days. Thousands of Shias have also volunteered to join the fight against the ISIS, also in response to al-Sistani's call.

Armed police, including SWAT teams, were seen at checkpoints in Baghdad, searching vehicles and checking drivers' documents. Security was particularly tightened on the northern and western approaches, the likely targets of ISIS fighters on the capital.

The city looked gloomy Sunday, with thin traffic and few shoppers in commercial areas. At a popular park along the Tigris River, only a fraction of the thousands who usually head there were present in the evening. In the commercial Karada district in central Baghdad, many of the sidewalk hawkers who sell anything from shoes to toys and clothes were absent.

According to police and hospital officials, a car bomb in the city centre killed 10 and wounded 21. After nightfall, another explosion hit the area, killing two and wounding five. A third went off near a falafel shop in the sprawling Sadr City district, killing three and wounding seven. And late Sunday, a fourth blast in the northern Sulaikh district killed four and wounded 12.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Psaki said in a statement that much of the embassy staff will remain even as parts of Iraq experience instability and violence.

"Overall, a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission," she said.

Some staff was temporarily moved elsewhere in Iraq and to Jordan, she said.

Secretary of State John Kerry called foreign ministers in Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to discuss the need for Iraqi leaders to work together.

U.S. ships arrive in Persian Gulf

The USS George H.W. Bush arrived in the Persian Gulf as President Barack Obama considers possible military options, although he has ruled out putting American troops on the ground in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby has said the move will give Obama additional flexibility if military action were required to protect American citizens and interests in Iraq.

In neighbouring Iran, the acting commander of the Islamic Republic's army ground forces, Gen. Kiomars Heidari, said Iran has increased its defences along its western border with Iraq, though there was no immediate threat to the frontier.

Iraqi government officials said ISIS fighters were trying to capture the city of Tal Afar in the north and firing rockets seized from military arms depots. The officials said the local garrison suffered heavy casualties and the main hospital was unable to cope with the wounded, without providing exact numbers.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters. Tal Afar is mainly inhabited by Turkmen, an ethnic minority.

Al-Moussawi, the military spokesman, confirmed fighting was raging at Tal Afar, but indicated that the militants were suffering heavy casualties. On all fronts north of Baghdad, he said, a total of 297 militants have been killed in the past 24 hours.

There was no way to independently confirm his claims.

ISIS and allied Sunni militants captured a large part of northern Iraq last week, including the second-largest city of Mosul and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, as Iraqi troops, many of them armed and trained by the U.S., fled in disarray, surrendering vehicles, weapons and ammunition to the extremist group, which also fights in Syria.

The photos of the Iraqi soldiers purported to have been killed did not provide a date or location, but al-Moussawi said the killings took place in Salahuddin province. Its capital is Tikrit.

Executions avenged ISIS commander death

The photo captions said their deaths were to avenge the killing of an ISIS commander, Abdul-Rahman al-Beilawy. His death was reported by both the government and ISIL shortly before the al-Qaida splinter group's lightning offensive.

"This is the fate that awaits the Shias sent by Nouri to fight the Sunnis," one caption read, apparently referring to al-Maliki.

Most of the soldiers in the photos were in civilian clothes. Some were shown wearing military uniforms underneath, indicating they may have hastily disguised themselves as civilians to try to escape.

Some of the soldiers appeared to be pleading for their lives; others seemed terrified.

All the soldiers appeared to be in their early 20s, with some wearing European soccer jerseys. Some of the militants wore black baggy pants and shirts, many of them had sandals or flip flops.

Iraqi authorities appear to be trying to limit the dissemination of such images and other militant propaganda being shared through social media and to deny the militants their use for operational purposes.

Martin Frank, the CEO of IQ Networks, an Internet service provider in Iraq, told the AP that authorities have ordered multiple social media sites, including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to be blocked. On Sunday, they tightened the restrictions further by telling network operators to halt traffic for virtual private networks, which allow users to bypass Internet filters.

Internet traffic in several areas overrun by militants, including Mosul and Tikrit, was ordered cut off altogether, he said. No timeframe was given for the shutdowns.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

Extremists have a grip on the country as Sunni Muslims decide that the jihadists are preferable to persecution by the official Iraqi army

By Patrick Cockburn

June 15, 2014 "ICH" - "The Independent" - - Even the fanatics of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) are astonished at the extent of their own victory in taking control over Iraq's second city, Mosul, in the past week. "Enemies and supporters alike are flabbergasted," said Isis spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani. It is difficult to think of any examples in history when security forces almost a million strong, including 14 army divisions, have crumbled so immediately after attacks from an enemy force that has been estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 strong.
It is a rout without precedent. I have written frequently in the past in this newspaper that the Iraqi security forces were a corrupt patronage machine that exploited and persecuted the local population. It was significant that for the first six months of this year, Isis secured its grip on Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, without any sustained effort by the army to dislodge them other than indiscriminate bombing and shelling of the city.
In March Isis even held a parade in Abu Ghraib, where the infamous prison had to be hastily evacuated, and which is a dozen miles from the centre of the Iraqi capital. A friend in Baghdad was shocked and half-amused to learn of Isis's presence from a pro-government television news channel that announced "a great triumph by the Iraqi security forces in defeating the terrorists east and west of Abu Ghraib".

Corruption in the army took place at every level. A general could become a divisional commander at a cost of $2m (£1.18m) and would then have to recoup his investment from kickbacks at checkpoints on the roads, charging every goods vehicle. An Iraqi businessman told me some years ago that he had stopped importing goods through Basra port as unprofitable because of the amount of money he had to spend bribing officials and soldiers at every stage as his goods were moved from the ship at the dockside to Baghdad.

A captured Iraqi military vehicle

A captured Iraqi military vehicle (AFP)

Unsurprisingly, Iraqi soldiers and police were not prepared to fight and die in their posts resisting Isis last week, since their jobs were always primarily about making money for their families.

Another friend in Baghdad (I am afraid any account of Iraq will always be littered with sources who wish to remain anonymous) told me: "Soldiers under Saddam Hussein often wanted to desert they were scarcely paid but they knew they would be killed if they did, so it was better to die in battle. The present army has never been a national army, its soldiers were only interested in their salaries and they were no longer frightened of what would happen to them if they ran away."

Military units never took part in training exercises and most soldiers only knew how to use a Kalashnikov assault rifle. There are a few trained and well-equipped Swat teams of anti-terrorist forces that are effective but not numerous.

In Sunni areas the army and security forces behaved as an occupation force and were consequently much feared and hated. Frightening and bloodthirsty Isis fighters may be, but for many in Mosul they are preferable to government forces. Sunni men were alienated by not having a job because government funds were spent elsewhere and, on occasion, suddenly sacked without a pension for obligatory membership of the Ba'ath party decades earlier. One Sunni teacher with 30 years' experience one day got a crumpled note under his door telling him not to come to work at his school any more because he had been fired for this reason. "What am I to do? How am I going to feed my family?" he asked.

Sectarian discrimination and persecution became the common lot of Iraq's five or six million Sunni who had been the dominant community for centuries. A Sunni might be picked up by the police, tortured into a confession, sentenced to a long term in prison or even executed. Even if he was found innocent by a court, his family might have to pay $50,000 to $100,000 to get an officer in the prison to sign his release papers. An Isis fighter was recently reported as joking: "When we capture our enemies we kill them; when you capture one of us we pay money and he is released."

Anger at these abuses is relevant to what is now happening. The majority of Sunni Arabs in Mosul attitudes will be different among Kurds and minorities are wary of Isis but terrified of what a vengeful Iraqi army will do if it retakes the city. Past experience, based on what happened in Mosul in 2003 when insurgents briefly took the city, shows that Sunni men, regardless of their actions or sympathies, will be vulnerable to arrest, torture and execution. Isis may have seized Mosul with a small force, but if the Iraqi army tries to take it back tens of thousands of Sunni will fight to defend it.

A burning Iraqi army Humvee

A burning Iraqi army Humvee (AFP)

The same is true in the rest of Sunni Iraq. Isis may have begun the assault, but many other groups have joined in. We are now looking at a general uprising of the Iraqi Sunni. Those taking over Saddam Hussain's hometown of Tikrit are not Isis, but his old adherents who are putting up posters of the late dictator.

Mosul is a traditional recruiting ground for the officer corps of the old Iraqi army. Much will depend how far Isis is capable of moderating its policies in order to accommodate more secular or Ba'athist opponents of the Baghdad government. In 2006-7 it alienated other Sunni by its brutality, enabling the US to win them over and isolate al-Qa'ida in Iraq. The present Iraqi government has got the worst of all possible worlds by persecuting the Sunni enough to enrage and unite them, but without crushing them.

The incompetence of the government in Baghdad explains many but not all the disasters of the last week. Isis were the shock troops of a much broader group of Sunni militant groups such as al-Naqshbandi army and assorted Ba'athist groups. Attacks were well coordinated and planned and were probably assisted by Sunni army officers within the regular Iraqi army sabotaging the defence.

Much attention is given in the media to what the US will now do. But Americans are not the players they once were in Iraq. More important is how Iran reacts. After the overthrow of Saddam, it struggled with the US for influence in Iraq for six or seven years and eventually emerged as the main foreign influence in the country.

There was also a degree of mostly covert cooperation between the US and Iran in opposition to Saddam pre-2003 and afterwards to install a stable Shia-Kurdish government in the face of an insurgency. Their differences stemmed from rivalry about who should be the dominant power in post-Saddam Iraq.

Iraq matters more to Iran than Syria. It is also better placed than the US to help the beleaguered Iraqi government. The Iraqi army and its commanders are wholly discredited. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is now moving into Baghdad to reorganise a new military force that would combine elements of the old military and the militias, some of which are already under Iranian control. The aim of this would be to hold Baghdad and probably a line to the north through mixed Sunni-Shia provinces such as Diyala and cities including Samarra with its Shia shrine, destruction of which in 2006 led to the most savage stage of the Sunni-Shia civil war.

US and Britain must work with Iran if they are to stop an extreme Sunni state emerging in north and west Iraq extending into eastern Syria.

Iran warns against military intervention in Iraq: Iran warned on Sunday that "any foreign military intervention in Iraq" would only complicate the crisis, after the US said it was deploying a warship in the Gulf. "Iraq has the capacity and necessary preparations for the fight against terrorism and extremism," foreign ministry spokesman Marzieh Afkham was Sunday quoted as saying

US, UK create joint team to prepare for air strikes in Iraq report: Over a decade after the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003, the military allies have created a joint 'counter-terrorist' team to send to the country. British officers are already on their way to prepare for possible air strikes, The Sunday Times reports.

Please read our Comment Policy before posting -
We ask readers to play a proactive role and click the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when in your opinion, comments cross the line and become purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.

Just after the lightning [2003] takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forcesan unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran

In the absence of direct diplomatic relations between the US and Iran, Switzerland was acting as Protecting Power for US interests in Iran; so as Swiss ambassador, Guldimann had a formal position as an intermediary between the two estranged governments.

It is not in dispute that the Iranian Proposal represented the best chance for a settlement of the outstanding problems of US-Iranian relationssince the revolution. While the Proposal was welcomed in the US State Department by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney vetoed the proposal, on the grounds that We dont speak to Evil (a bold and questionable declaration, given Rumsfelds infamous handshake with Saddam Hussein in December 1983).Within three years Khatami was out of office, the Iranian presidency and Foreign Ministry were again in the hands of the right, the question of Irans nuclear ambitions was more and more pressing, the US was in serious trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan, people were talking about a new era of Iranian hegemony in the region and Irans foreign policy had become much more confrontational. By that time the mood of hubris in Washington had passed and the rejection of the Grand Bargain [Proposal] came to be seen for what it was a terrible mistake... http://detailedpolit...ress.com/ira...
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply
-2Frank 's avatar
Frank · 4 hours ago
So after 30 years of threats , warnings and "Death to America" slogans , iran is now willing to work with the americans to fight ISIL !!! Actually . it doesn't surprise me , I knew they were allies all along , I never believed any of that war on iran nonsense .
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply2 replies · active 19 minutes ago
+1Sycorax's avatar
Sycorax · 4 hours ago
Frank, you might wanna take that plastic bag off of your head and take a few deep breaths before you type down those thoughts you got.
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply
0Steve Anderson's avatar
Steve Anderson · 19 minutes ago
Are you ok Frank? Your neck sore? Having ones head up ones own backside can do that..
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply
+1Kofi's avatar
Kofi · 1 hour ago
Folks, please read some of the reports from the ground in Iraq available in social media including Twitter. There is a huge propaganda effort to label those trying to overthrow the Maliki regime as terrorists, and "brutal" ISIS killers. Knowledgeable people on the ground say otherwise and state the fighters are revolutionaries and patriots led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri who want to take back their country and stop the rape if its resources. Regardless of so called "enemy" status, the Iranians and American have been cooperating on Iraq from the outset. This is nothing new. And the title of Patrick Cockburn's piece underscores not only his biases, but also his ignorance and stupidity. Cockburn, along with the like of other 'lefties' like Robert Fisk, George Monbiot, Juan Cole et al were enablers of the Iraq war as they joined the Western propaganda bandwagon to demonize Saddam Hussein. And what was the end result of Saddam Hussein's removal: 1.5 mln deaths and untold misery for the Iraq people, both Shia and Sunni. One can be sympathetic to Iran in its relations with the USA and Israel, but Iran's role in Iraq has been horrific. Iran has facilitated the western occupation and committed terrible crimes directly and via its proxies. Its is crucial that readers of ICH, a superlative alternative site for news by the well intentioned Tom Feely, educate themselves prior to pontificating and regurgitating propaganda, including by the likes of Cockburn.

Info on Iraq https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolahhttps://twitter.com/laylaanwarhttps://twitter.com/markito0171
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply2 replies · active 24 minutes ago
+1's avatar - Go to profile
USA NEEDS COMMUNISM · 37 minutes ago
Counterpunch.org which is the website where Patrick Cockburn writes his articles is part of the revisionist, reformist left. They are not radical leftists, they are part of the middle class left, the college academic left, the bourgeoise left. Karl Marx called this left "The Bourgoise Socialists". That's why I read most of their articles with a grain of salt. Just like the articles of commondreams.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Everybody is entitled to my opinion!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make." -- Lord Farquaad, "Shrek"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------`Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.'------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary idea! G.Orwell------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extremists have a grip on the country as Sunni Muslims decide that the jihadists are preferable to persecution by the official Iraqi army

By Patrick Cockburn

June 15, 2014 "ICH" - "The Independent" - - Even the fanatics of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) are astonished at the extent of their own victory in taking control over Iraq's second city, Mosul, in the past week. "Enemies and supporters alike are flabbergasted," said Isis spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani. It is difficult to think of any examples in history when security forces almost a million strong, including 14 army divisions, have crumbled so immediately after attacks from an enemy force that has been estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 strong.
It is a rout without precedent. I have written frequently in the past in this newspaper that the Iraqi security forces were a corrupt patronage machine that exploited and persecuted the local population. It was significant that for the first six months of this year, Isis secured its grip on Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, without any sustained effort by the army to dislodge them other than indiscriminate bombing and shelling of the city.
In March Isis even held a parade in Abu Ghraib, where the infamous prison had to be hastily evacuated, and which is a dozen miles from the centre of the Iraqi capital. A friend in Baghdad was shocked and half-amused to learn of Isis's presence from a pro-government television news channel that announced "a great triumph by the Iraqi security forces in defeating the terrorists east and west of Abu Ghraib".

Corruption in the army took place at every level. A general could become a divisional commander at a cost of $2m (£1.18m) and would then have to recoup his investment from kickbacks at checkpoints on the roads, charging every goods vehicle. An Iraqi businessman told me some years ago that he had stopped importing goods through Basra port as unprofitable because of the amount of money he had to spend bribing officials and soldiers at every stage as his goods were moved from the ship at the dockside to Baghdad.

A captured Iraqi military vehicle

A captured Iraqi military vehicle (AFP)

Unsurprisingly, Iraqi soldiers and police were not prepared to fight and die in their posts resisting Isis last week, since their jobs were always primarily about making money for their families.

Another friend in Baghdad (I am afraid any account of Iraq will always be littered with sources who wish to remain anonymous) told me: "Soldiers under Saddam Hussein often wanted to desert they were scarcely paid but they knew they would be killed if they did, so it was better to die in battle. The present army has never been a national army, its soldiers were only interested in their salaries and they were no longer frightened of what would happen to them if they ran away."

Military units never took part in training exercises and most soldiers only knew how to use a Kalashnikov assault rifle. There are a few trained and well-equipped Swat teams of anti-terrorist forces that are effective but not numerous.

In Sunni areas the army and security forces behaved as an occupation force and were consequently much feared and hated. Frightening and bloodthirsty Isis fighters may be, but for many in Mosul they are preferable to government forces. Sunni men were alienated by not having a job because government funds were spent elsewhere and, on occasion, suddenly sacked without a pension for obligatory membership of the Ba'ath party decades earlier. One Sunni teacher with 30 years' experience one day got a crumpled note under his door telling him not to come to work at his school any more because he had been fired for this reason. "What am I to do? How am I going to feed my family?" he asked.

Sectarian discrimination and persecution became the common lot of Iraq's five or six million Sunni who had been the dominant community for centuries. A Sunni might be picked up by the police, tortured into a confession, sentenced to a long term in prison or even executed. Even if he was found innocent by a court, his family might have to pay $50,000 to $100,000 to get an officer in the prison to sign his release papers. An Isis fighter was recently reported as joking: "When we capture our enemies we kill them; when you capture one of us we pay money and he is released."

Anger at these abuses is relevant to what is now happening. The majority of Sunni Arabs in Mosul attitudes will be different among Kurds and minorities are wary of Isis but terrified of what a vengeful Iraqi army will do if it retakes the city. Past experience, based on what happened in Mosul in 2003 when insurgents briefly took the city, shows that Sunni men, regardless of their actions or sympathies, will be vulnerable to arrest, torture and execution. Isis may have seized Mosul with a small force, but if the Iraqi army tries to take it back tens of thousands of Sunni will fight to defend it.

A burning Iraqi army Humvee

A burning Iraqi army Humvee (AFP)

The same is true in the rest of Sunni Iraq. Isis may have begun the assault, but many other groups have joined in. We are now looking at a general uprising of the Iraqi Sunni. Those taking over Saddam Hussain's hometown of Tikrit are not Isis, but his old adherents who are putting up posters of the late dictator.

Mosul is a traditional recruiting ground for the officer corps of the old Iraqi army. Much will depend how far Isis is capable of moderating its policies in order to accommodate more secular or Ba'athist opponents of the Baghdad government. In 2006-7 it alienated other Sunni by its brutality, enabling the US to win them over and isolate al-Qa'ida in Iraq. The present Iraqi government has got the worst of all possible worlds by persecuting the Sunni enough to enrage and unite them, but without crushing them.

The incompetence of the government in Baghdad explains many but not all the disasters of the last week. Isis were the shock troops of a much broader group of Sunni militant groups such as al-Naqshbandi army and assorted Ba'athist groups. Attacks were well coordinated and planned and were probably assisted by Sunni army officers within the regular Iraqi army sabotaging the defence.

Much attention is given in the media to what the US will now do. But Americans are not the players they once were in Iraq. More important is how Iran reacts. After the overthrow of Saddam, it struggled with the US for influence in Iraq for six or seven years and eventually emerged as the main foreign influence in the country.

There was also a degree of mostly covert cooperation between the US and Iran in opposition to Saddam pre-2003 and afterwards to install a stable Shia-Kurdish government in the face of an insurgency. Their differences stemmed from rivalry about who should be the dominant power in post-Saddam Iraq.

Iraq matters more to Iran than Syria. It is also better placed than the US to help the beleaguered Iraqi government. The Iraqi army and its commanders are wholly discredited. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is now moving into Baghdad to reorganise a new military force that would combine elements of the old military and the militias, some of which are already under Iranian control. The aim of this would be to hold Baghdad and probably a line to the north through mixed Sunni-Shia provinces such as Diyala and cities including Samarra with its Shia shrine, destruction of which in 2006 led to the most savage stage of the Sunni-Shia civil war.

US and Britain must work with Iran if they are to stop an extreme Sunni state emerging in north and west Iraq extending into eastern Syria.

Iran warns against military intervention in Iraq: Iran warned on Sunday that "any foreign military intervention in Iraq" would only complicate the crisis, after the US said it was deploying a warship in the Gulf. "Iraq has the capacity and necessary preparations for the fight against terrorism and extremism," foreign ministry spokesman Marzieh Afkham was Sunday quoted as saying

US, UK create joint team to prepare for air strikes in Iraq report: Over a decade after the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003, the military allies have created a joint 'counter-terrorist' team to send to the country. British officers are already on their way to prepare for possible air strikes, The Sunday Times reports.

Please read our Comment Policy before posting -
We ask readers to play a proactive role and click the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when in your opinion, comments cross the line and become purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.

Just after the lightning [2003] takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forcesan unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran

In the absence of direct diplomatic relations between the US and Iran, Switzerland was acting as Protecting Power for US interests in Iran; so as Swiss ambassador, Guldimann had a formal position as an intermediary between the two estranged governments.

It is not in dispute that the Iranian Proposal represented the best chance for a settlement of the outstanding problems of US-Iranian relationssince the revolution. While the Proposal was welcomed in the US State Department by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney vetoed the proposal, on the grounds that We dont speak to Evil (a bold and questionable declaration, given Rumsfelds infamous handshake with Saddam Hussein in December 1983).Within three years Khatami was out of office, the Iranian presidency and Foreign Ministry were again in the hands of the right, the question of Irans nuclear ambitions was more and more pressing, the US was in serious trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan, people were talking about a new era of Iranian hegemony in the region and Irans foreign policy had become much more confrontational. By that time the mood of hubris in Washington had passed and the rejection of the Grand Bargain [Proposal] came to be seen for what it was a terrible mistake... http://detailedpolit...ress.com/ira...
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply
-2Frank 's avatar
Frank · 4 hours ago
So after 30 years of threats , warnings and "Death to America" slogans , iran is now willing to work with the americans to fight ISIL !!! Actually . it doesn't surprise me , I knew they were allies all along , I never believed any of that war on iran nonsense .
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply2 replies · active 19 minutes ago
+1Sycorax's avatar
Sycorax · 4 hours ago
Frank, you might wanna take that plastic bag off of your head and take a few deep breaths before you type down those thoughts you got.
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply
0Steve Anderson's avatar
Steve Anderson · 19 minutes ago
Are you ok Frank? Your neck sore? Having ones head up ones own backside can do that..
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply
+1Kofi's avatar
Kofi · 1 hour ago
Folks, please read some of the reports from the ground in Iraq available in social media including Twitter. There is a huge propaganda effort to label those trying to overthrow the Maliki regime as terrorists, and "brutal" ISIS killers. Knowledgeable people on the ground say otherwise and state the fighters are revolutionaries and patriots led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri who want to take back their country and stop the rape if its resources. Regardless of so called "enemy" status, the Iranians and American have been cooperating on Iraq from the outset. This is nothing new. And the title of Patrick Cockburn's piece underscores not only his biases, but also his ignorance and stupidity. Cockburn, along with the like of other 'lefties' like Robert Fisk, George Monbiot, Juan Cole et al were enablers of the Iraq war as they joined the Western propaganda bandwagon to demonize Saddam Hussein. And what was the end result of Saddam Hussein's removal: 1.5 mln deaths and untold misery for the Iraq people, both Shia and Sunni. One can be sympathetic to Iran in its relations with the USA and Israel, but Iran's role in Iraq has been horrific. Iran has facilitated the western occupation and committed terrible crimes directly and via its proxies. Its is crucial that readers of ICH, a superlative alternative site for news by the well intentioned Tom Feely, educate themselves prior to pontificating and regurgitating propaganda, including by the likes of Cockburn.

Info on Iraq https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolahhttps://twitter.com/laylaanwarhttps://twitter.com/markito0171
Share/Save/Bookmark
Report
Reply2 replies · active 24 minutes ago
+1's avatar - Go to profile
USA NEEDS COMMUNISM · 37 minutes ago
Counterpunch.org which is the website where Patrick Cockburn writes his articles is part of the revisionist, reformist left. They are not radical leftists, they are part of the middle class left, the college academic left, the bourgeoise left. Karl Marx called this left "The Bourgoise Socialists". That's why I read most of their articles with a grain of salt. Just like the articles of commondreams.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Everybody is entitled to my opinion!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make." -- Lord Farquaad, "Shrek"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------`Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.'------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary idea! G.Orwell------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The system of Godlessness can work, but the system of injustice never works. It was said by your own "Imam" Ali Ra.

I say they are terrorists you say they are champions of social rights.

Lets see if they act more like terrorists or social activists. Only time will tell. But I do sure as hell hope that you are right for no other reason but the wellbeing of masses of ordinary people who often are the main victims of terrorism.

It's not the mountains ahead, that wear you out...It's the grain of sand in your shoe.

The following is meant to provide an overview of the military situation in Iraq for non-experts.

Caveat. It is exceptionally difficult to understand the dynamics of ongoing military operations. Oftentimes, the participants themselves do not know why they are winning or losing, or even where they are in control or where their troops are. For non-participants, it is often equally difficult to gain more than a rudimentary sense of the combat without access to the sophisticated intelligence gathering capabilities—overhead imagery, signals intercepts, human reporting, etc.—available to the United States and some other governments. As one of the CIA’s Persian Gulf military analysts during the 1990-91 Gulf War, I noted the difficulty that many outside analysts had in gauging the capabilities of the two sides and following the course of operations because they did not have access to the information available to us from U.S. government assets. Consequently, readers should bring a healthy dose of skepticism to all such analyses of the current fighting in Iraq, including this one.

Likely Next Steps in the Fighting

What appears to be the most likely scenario at this point is that the rapid Sunni militant advance is likely to be stalemated at or north of Baghdad. They will probably continue to make some advances, but it seems unlikely that they will be able to overrun Baghdad and may not even make it to the capital. This scenario appears considerably more likely than the two next most likely alternative scenarios: that the Sunni militants overrun Baghdad and continue their advance south into the Shia heartland of Iraq; or that the Shia coalition is able to counterattack and drive the Sunnis out of most of their recent conquests.

It is not a coincidence that the Sunni militants made rapid advances across primarily Sunni lands. That’s because it is not surprising that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) would crumble in those areas. As Baghdad has (rightly) observed, several of the divisions in the north were disproportionately composed of Kurds and Sunni Arabs, many of them frustrated and alienated by Prime Minister Maliki’s harsh consolidation of power and marginalization of their communities. They were never going to fight to the death for Maliki and against Sunni militants looking to stop him. Similarly, the considerable number of Shia troops in the north understandably saw little point to fighting and dying for principally Sunni cities like Mosul, Tikrit, Bayji, etc.

Baghdad could be another matter entirely. First, it is a vast city of almost 9 million people compared to Mosul with less than 2 million. Moreover, the Sunni militants only secured the western (Sunni Arab) half of Mosul, leaving the eastern (Kurdish-dominated) half alone. Conquering a city the size of Baghdad is always a formidable undertaking when it is defended by determined troops.

After the battles of the 2006-2008 civil war, Baghdad is also now a more heavily Shia city—probably 75-80 percent of its population, although it is very difficult to know for certain. While it is understandable, even predictable, that Shia troops would not fight and die for Sunni cities, many are likely to find their courage when they are defending their homes and families in Baghdad and the other Shia-dominated cities of the south.

In addition, as has been well-reported, the (largely-Shia) remnants of the ISF are being reinforced by Shia militiamen and bolstered by contingents of Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Although many of the Shia militiamen will be new recruits answering Ayatollah Sistani’s call to defend their community, others are hardened veterans of the fighting in Iraq in 2006-2008 and Syria since 2011.

Thus, the Sunni militants are likely to come up against a far more determined and numerous foe than they have confronted so far. The most likely outcome of that fighting will be a vicious stalemate at or north of Baghdad, basically along Iraq’s ethno-sectarian divide. That is also not surprising because it conforms to the pattern of many similar intercommunal civil wars. In Syria today, in Lebanon in the 1980s, Afghanistan in the 1990s, and elsewhere, that is where the frontlines tend to stalemate. They can shift here and there in small ways, but generally remain unchanged for years. That’s because militias in civil wars find it far easier to hold territory inhabited by the members of their identity group than to conquer (and hold) territory inhabited by members of a rival identity group. It’s one reason they typically try to “cleanse” any territory they have conquered of members of the rival identity group.

If military developments in Iraq conform to this most likely scenario, they could lead to a protracted, bloody stalemate along those lines. In that case, one side or the other would have to receive disproportionately greater military assistance from an outside backer than its adversary to make meaningful territorial gains. Absent that, the fighting will probably continue for years and hundreds of thousands will die.

Watch Anbar. So far, the Sunni militants in Anbar are the dog that hasn’t barked, at least not yet. Obviously, the Sunni militants have significant strength in Anbar, including considerable numbers of ISIS fighters. It is militarily obvious that they should seek to develop a complimentary offensive out of Anbar. Doing so would allow them to (1) open another axis of advance against Baghdad and catch it in a classic pincer movement, or (2) develop a direct advance against the great Shia religious cities of Karbala and Najaf (the most sacred sites in Shia Islam), and/or (3) force the Shia to divert military assets away from the north-south Sunni advance and potentially overstretch their manpower and command and control.

Consequently, the fact that no such offensive has yet materialized is noteworthy. It may be that Sunni militant forces in Anbar were so badly beaten up in the fighting with the ISF around Fallujah and Ramadi that they are not capable of mounting such an attack. Alternatively, they may be preparing to do precisely that.

In short, Anbar bears watching because a Sunni offensive there will further stress the Shia defenses. It is a key variable that could undermine the Shia defense of Baghdad. So if you are looking for something that would push Iraq from the most likely scenario (a bloody stalemate in or north of Baghdad) to the second most likely scenario (a continued Sunni advance through and beyond Baghdad) a successful Sunni offensive from Anbar would be one such variable.

Watch Iran. Given the various problems on the Shia side (demoralization, fragmentation, politicization of the ISF), the variable that would be most likely to advantage the Shia and push Iraq from the most likely scenario (a bloody stalemate in or north of Baghdad) to the third most likely scenario (a Shia counteroffensive that eliminates most of the Sunni gains) is Iranian participation. On their own, it is unlikely that even the larger and more motivated Iraqi Shia forces now assembling to defend Baghdad would be able to retake the Sunni-dominated north. What would make that far more possible would be much greater Iranian involvement, particularly much larger commitments of Iranian ground combat formations.

So far, Iran appears only to have committed three battalion-sized groups of Quds force personnel. Quds force personnel are typically trainers and advisers, not line infantrymen. They are the “Green Berets” of Iran, who help make indigenous forces better rather than fighting the fight themselves. That would make sense for the current situation in Iraq, and those personnel will help stiffen the Shia defense of Baghdad. However, they are unlikely to improve Shia capabilities to the point where they can develop a major offensive to take back the North. Only the commitment of large numbers of Iranian line formations—infantry, armor and artillery—could do that. Consequently, were we to see a large Iranian commitment of such ground combat units, it would signal that the third-most likely scenario was becoming far more likely.

The Combatants, Part I: The Sunni Militants

It is important to understand a few key points about the Sunni militant side of the new Iraqi civil war.

It’s a Coalition, not a Single Group. First, ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is essentially the “lead dog” of a larger Sunni militant coalition—hence my preference for the latter, more accurate description. ISIS has been fighting in conjunction with a number of other Iraqi Sunni militant groups. Effectively the entire rogue’s gallery of Sunni militias from the 2006-2008 civil war have been revived by Prime Minister Maliki’s alienation of the Sunni Arab community since 2011. AQI, the Naqshbandis, the Ba’th, Jaysh al-Muhammad, Ansar al-Sunnah, and all of the rest are back in operation in Iraq, in at least tacit cooperation with a number of Sunni tribes.

These groups are key members of the Sunni militant coalition. They have done a great deal of the fighting, dying and occupying. Often they are indistinguishable from one another to outsiders or even Iraqis who are not themselves Sunni militants.

It’s an Iraqi Entity, not a Foreign Invasion. While the Iraqi government has emphasized the foreign elements in ISIS, their indigenous, Iraqi component is of far greater importance. ISIS has been part of the violence in Iraq for over a year. Many of its personnel are Iraqis. Even before last weeks operations, it had an extensive network in Iraq which both conducted terrorist attacks across the length and breadth of the country, and has been engaged in a conventional battle for Ramadi and Fallujah with the ISF for over six months. Moreover, it is busily engaged in recruiting and training additional Sunni Iraqis which is simply reinforcing the Iraqi nature of the group. Finally, as noted above, ISIS is only one piece (albeit, the central piece) in a larger array of Sunni groups that are overwhelmingly Iraqi.

This is important because Prime Minister Maliki and his apologists have tried to paint ISIS as a group of foreigners who were waging the Syrian civil war and suddenly decided to launch an invasion of neighboring Iraq. If that narrative were true, it would suggest that a pure (and immediate) military response were warranted since such a group would have a great deal of difficulty holding territory conquered in Iraq. It would obviate the need for far-reaching political changes, which Maliki seeks to avoid.

Consequently, it is critical to understand that ISIS is as much an Iraqi group as it is Syrian or anything else, and its success is largely a product of its ability to capitalize on Iraq’s political problems and to be accepted (if only grudgingly) by many Iraqi Sunnis as a champion in the fight against what they see as an oppressive, partisan Shia regime.

These are Militias First and Foremost, Terrorists only a Distant Second. Here as well, Prime Minister Maliki and his apologists like to refer to the Sunni militants as terrorists. Too often, so too do American officials. Without getting into arcane and useless debates about what constitutes a “terrorist,” as a practical matter it is a mistake to think of these groups as being principally a bunch of terrorists.

The problem there is that that implies that what these guys mostly want to do is to blow up building or planes elsewhere around the world, and particularly American buildings and planes. While I have no doubt that there are some among the Sunni militants who want to blow up American buildings and planes right now, and many others who would like to do so later, that is not their principal motivation.

Instead, this is a traditional ethno-sectarian militia waging an intercommunal civil war. (They are also not an insurgency.) They are looking to conquer territory. They will do so using guerrilla tactics or conventional tactics—and they have been principally using conventional tactics since the seizure of Fallujah over six months ago. Their entire advance south over the past week has been a conventional, motorized light-infantry offensive; not a terrorist campaign, not a guerrilla warfare campaign.

And right now, they are completely consumed with continuing to wage this conventional offensive against the Shia forces arrayed against them. That is likely to remain their pre-occupation for some time to come. Somewhere down the road, they probably will begin to mount terrorist attacks against other countries from their secure areas in Iraq and Syria, precisely as the intelligence community warned. But that will be an adjunct to their waging of the new Iraqi civil war.

That is important because defining the Sunni militants as terrorists implies that they need to be attacked immediately and directly by the United States. Seeing them for what they are, first and foremost a sectarian militia waging a civil war, puts the emphasis on where it needs to be: finding an integrated political-military solution to the internal Iraqi problems that sparked the civil war. And that is a set of problems that is unlikely to be solved by immediate, direct American attacks on the Sunni militants. Indeed, such attacks could easily make the situation worse.

The Combatants, Part II: The Shia Coalition

A few points are also in order regarding the other side of the fight, the Shia.

Of greatest importance, we need to recognize that the Iraqi Security Forces are fast becoming little more than a Shia militia. This trend began 3-4 years ago when Prime Minister Maliki began to push Sunni and Kurdish officers out of the armed forces, to replace them with loyal Shia officers. As a result, even before the current debacle, the ISF had become far more Shia than it had been, with fewer and fewer Sunnis and Kurds. Even before the dramatic events of last week, most Sunnis and Kurds referred to the ISF as “Maliki’s militia.” Since last Tuesday, we have seen large numbers of Sunni Arab and Kurdish soldiers desert the ISF, leaving an even more homogeneously Shia force. There are still Sunnis and Kurds in the ranks and in the officer corps, but that seems likely to dissipate over time.

This is a trend that is common to these kinds of intercommunal civil wars. The “Syrian Armed Forces” of today are nothing more than the Asad regime’s militia, heavily comprised of Alawis and other minorities aligned with the regime. All throughout the Lebanese civil war, there was an entity called “the Lebanese Armed Forces” (LAF) that wore the uniforms, lived on the bases and employed the equipment of Lebanon’s former army. But they had become nothing but a Maronite Christian militia (after all of the Muslims and Druse deserted in the late 1970s), and their commanders nothing but Maronite Christian warlords. The same is already happening with the ISF and that trend is likely to continue.

This is important because one of the worst mistakes the United States made in the 1980s was to assume that the Lebanese Armed Forces were still a neutral, professional armed force committed to the security of the entire state. That was a key piece of the tragic U.S. mishandling of Lebanon. When the Reagan Administration intervened in Lebanon in 1983, one of its goals was shoring up the LAF so that it could stabilize the country. Everyone else in Lebanon—and the Middle East—recognized that the LAF had devolved into a Maronite militia and so they saw the U.S. intervention as the (Christian) United States coming to aid the (Christian) Maronite militia. That is why all of the other warring groups in Lebanon immediately saw the American forces not as neutral peacemakers, but as partisans—allies of the Maronites—and so started to attack our forces. It led directly to the Beirut barracks blast and the humiliating withdrawal of our troops.

There is the same danger in Iraq. If we treat the ISF as an apolitical, national army committed to disinterested stability in Iraq, and provide it with weapons and other military support to do so, we will once again be seen as taking a side in a civil war—even if we are doing so inadvertently, again. Everyone else, including our Sunni Arab allies, will see us as siding with the Shia against the Sunnis in the Iraqi civil war. That perspective will only be reinforced by the ongoing nuclear talks with (Shia) Iran. It is why any American military assistance to Iraq must be conditioned on concrete changes in Iraq’s political structure to bring the Sunnis back in and limit the powers of the (Shia) prime minister, coupled with a thorough depoliticization of the ISF. That is the only way we may be able to convince the Sunnis that we have not simply taken the side of Maliki and the Iranians.

What happened to the ISF? Many have been asking what happened to the Iraqi Security Forces that brought them from the successes of 2007-2008 to the collapse of their units in northern Iraq last week. Obviously, a definitive answer to that question will only be provided by historians at some future date, but a number of factors have been known about the ISF for some time and these undoubtedly caused the collapse in part or whole.

First, it is important to recognize that the ISF built by the U.S. military in 2006-2009 had only very modest military capabilities (primarily in counterinsurgency/counterterrorism/population control operations). Throughout the modern era, Arab militaries have never achieved more than middling levels of military effectiveness and on most occasions, their performances were dreadful. Iraq was no exception. (Those looking for additional information on this may want to read the chapter on modern Iraqi military history in my book, Arabs at War.) This was largely a product of factors inherent in Arab culture, education and economics. With enormous exertions, a small number of Arab militaries overcame these problems to perform at a mediocre level. However, whenever Arab regimes politicized their armed forces to try to prevent a military coup against themselves, the performance of their armies dropped from bad to abysmal.

American military trainers and advisors were able to marginally improve the military effectiveness of the ISF by introducing rigorous, Western-style training programs and partnering closely with Iraqi forces in ways that allowed U.S. personnel to get to know their Iraqi counterparts. As a result of this familiarity, over the course of many months, the Americans figured out who were the good Iraqi soldiers and who were the bad. Who was connected to the terrorists or militias, who was connected to organized crime, who was smart and brave, who was lazy or cowardly. And the U.S. military then went about systematically promoting the best Iraqis, and pushing out the bad ones.

The greatest impact of these American efforts with the ISF in 2006-2009 were to depoliticize it, both to modestly increase its combat effectiveness and to make it professional, apolitical and therefore accepted as a stabilizing force by all Iraqis. Again, this was largely performed by promoting professional, patriotic Iraqi officers and removing the sectarian chauvinists. The U.S. also pressed Baghdad to accept more and more Sunni and Kurdish officers and enlisted personnel into the ranks. As a result, the ISF became a far more integrated force than it had been, led by a far more apolitical and nationalistic officer corps than it had been before. Indeed, in 2008, when Prime Minister Maliki sent heavily-Sunni brigades from Anbar down to Basra to fight the Shia militia, Jaysh al-Mahdi, the Shia of Basra welcomed the ISF brigades and fought against the Shia militiamen.

Unfortunately, despite the boost it gave him, Prime Minister Maliki saw this largely apolitical and professional military as a threat to himself. He feared that it was overrun by Ba’thists (he sees far too many Sunnis as closet Ba’thists), unwilling to follow his orders (despite the fact that it had always done so), and looking to oust him at the first excuse. So, beginning in 2009-2010, he began to remove the capable, apolitical officers that the United States had painstakingly put in place throughout the Iraqi command structure. Instead, he put in men loyal to himself, often because they had been the ones passed over or removed by the Americans. The result was a heavily politicized and far less competent officer corps.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Maliki’s officers saw little need for the rigorous training programs the Americans had put in place. They closed many of the training facilities we built and allowed training to fall by the wayside. Not surprisingly, when these formations got into action again—both in some skirmishes with the Kurds and more bloody fights against Sunni militants—they did very poorly, undercutting morale.

Finally, beginning in 2011 immediately after the departure of the last American soldiers, Maliki began to use his new, politicized ISF to go after his political rivals, many of them leading (moderate) Sunni leaders. This was a critical element in his alienation of Iraq’s Sunni community, and further demoralized the Sunni Arab, Kurdish, and other minority personnel in the ISF. It also disappointed many of the Shia soldiers and officers who preferred to be part of an apolitical, national military and had never wanted to become part of “Maliki’s militia.”

Not surprisingly, when this force came under tremendous stress, it fractured. As noted above, it is now being rebuilt, but not as a national army; as a Shia militia. And the U.S. should only be providing it with aid if we are given the right and the ability to turn it back into an apolitical, national army.

The media’s frenzy over the Sunni mujahedin advance toward Baghdad is a stark reminder to all Americans of the dire costs exacted from them by the U.S. government’s unnecessary interventions in the affairs of other countries and peoples. Today’s stories from Iraq underline the total waste flowing from the 2003 U.S. intervention in Iraq, the costs of which exceed $1 trillion, 5,000 dead U.S. service personnel, many more thousands of soldiers and Marines wounded and maimed, and an unending and apparently un-endable war with the Muslim world.

It was easy, from the start, to see where U.S. intervention in Iraq would lead. Even a dumbass like myself correctly predicted the mess we are now seeing there in the substance of several books published between 2002 and 2011. Such predictions were not rocket science, a little knowledge of human nature and history were all a person needed to know that today’s events were all but inevitable. And if you did not have time for studying human nature or history, you merely had to recall what the Founding Father’s said about the unavoidable lethal consequences for the American nation that would flow from unnecessary U.S. intervention abroad.

In a nutshell, here is what the bipartisan U.S. interventionists and Neoconservatives — remember Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and most pro-Israel Democrats wanted war — managed in the space of little more than a decade.

–1.) They took a stable and effectively if brutally governed Iraq and destroyed it, and had nothing in hand or mind to maintain that status quo ante.

–2.) They destroyed, ironically, Israel’s last, best hope of survival by eliminating Saddam’s regime, which blocked the westward movement of Sunni jihadis. Now Iraq and Syria are verge on being controlled by Islamists, and, once that is a reality, Jordan will be knocked off. The bipartisan U.S. supporters of the Iraq war — many of whom are dogmatically pro-Israel — brought the jihad to Israel’s borders.

–3.) They supported the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad’s Sunnis and gave the city and country to an oppressive Iran-supported Shia regime, thereby knowingly planting the seeds of Iraq’s current sectarian/civil war and disintegration.

Quite a decade’s worth of negative achievements for the fundamentally anti-U.S. American interventionists, is it not? They invaded and occupied a country where American had no genuine national interests at risk as long as Saddam held sway. Though never intending to win in Iraq, they merrily plowed the lives and limbs of our soldiers and Marines into mostly sterile soil of a place irrelevant to the United States, but invaluable to the U.S. oil and arms industries and the domestic and foreign lobbies that poison and manipulate our political system.

What to do now? First, stay out of Iraq completely and utterly. To re-intervene would cost more American money and lives, and it would drive-up oil prices even faster. It also would amount not only to the United States again intervening in an oil-rich Muslim country, but intervening in a Sunni-Shia religious war on the side of the Shia, who are fiercely hated by the overwhelmingly Sunni Islamic world. Since the Obama administration — like its predecessor — would not intend to win or finally settle anything if it re-intervenes, the Sunni mujahedin will prevail; their victory will be seen by most Muslims as the Islamists’ defeating the United States In Iraq for a second time; and that victory will reinforce bin Laden’s promise that no nation-state can defeat the mujahedin if God finds their efforts worthy, which He seems to have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, the national government must act to defend the United States here at home in North America by getting the hell out of the way. Because Obama and his fellow environmental ideologues have done nothing since 2008 to move the United States toward energy self-sufficiency — all successful efforts on energy have been private sector-led — Americans are going to have to tighten their belts and ride out the higher gas prices that are coming because of events in Iraq. But, now, the XL Pipeline must be immediately started, and permits for drilling on Federal on- and off-shore lands must be issued as quickly as possible. Energy self-reliance is still years off but now is the time force Obama and his lieutenants act for the first time as American patriots, rather than elite professors who regard Americans as laboratory animals upon whom they can conduct their social, economic, environmental, and interventionist experiments to see how much tax they can pay and how much pain they can stand.

Third, Americans must look sharp and finally see that the Republican and Democratic interventionists — they are majorities in both parties — are killing the United States economically and politically; are earning us nearly innumerable enemies; and are involving us willy-nilly in unnecessary wars to protect, with American blood and money, the interests of countries from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Sub-Saharan Africa, countries where a change in government or even their demise would have no quantifiable impact on the genuine national security concerns of the United States.

The truth is that since the end of the Soviet Union, unrelenting bipartisan U.S. interventionism under the two Bushes, Clinton, and Obama has earned America only defeat, hatred, death, limb-less soldiers and Marines, bankruptcy, and diminished national security. History will show that Dr. Ron Paul was right about the nation-killing costs of foreign intervention score at every step of the way. Perhaps the current disaster in Iraq will show whether his Senator-son is a chip of the old block and eager to defend America, or an acquiescent interventionist willing to tack in any direction necessary to have a shot at the presidency.

Stop twisting and lying. I never said, they are champions of social justice. I said, They are taking advantage of social injustice, bias of shia government in Baghdad. It is only your blindness, bias and hatred that makes it hard for you to understand.

You refuse to admit there is a problem with Shia priminister and his treatment of his fellow citizens who happen to have different views than he does.

But no, you will never admit to it because you are a hateful, blind follower of Aytollahs.

Walk away if you want toit's ok, if you need toyou can run, but you can never hideFrom the shadow that's creeping up beside youThere's a magic running through your soulBut you can't have it all

For people who like to keep their heads in the sand, the following news report shows why a group as extreme as the ISIS has managed to take over large swathes of Sunni territory without any resistance. It is because the Shia-dominated government of Iraq is more cruel and oppressive to the Sunnis than extremist groups such as ISIS. Even Kurds, who have saved the Iraqi government from humiliation by protecting some towns from the ISIS, are facing discrimination at the hands of Shia militias.

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Kurdish taxi drivers shuttling between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad report abuse and beatings by Shiite militias and the Iraqi military because of their ethnicity, amid turmoil in Iraq as Sunni Islamic militants nearing Baghdad vow to topple the government.

Taxi drivers reported being abused and threatened by Shiite militants of the Iranian-backed Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous), and by Iraqi Army soldiers.

"I returned from Baghdad two days ago, they (Asa’ib) put a gun to my head, asking if we were Kurds,” recounted a driver from Erbil. “They told us, ‘if you ever come back, we will kill you,’ and then he started cursing us and our leaders.”

In a televised speech about the security situation in Iraq, the leader of the Asa’ib, Qais al-Khazali, blamed the current turmoil on an alleged plot hatched by the Kurds, militants of the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and loyalists of Saddam Hussein’s ousted regime.

"The Kurdish leaders seized the headquarters of the army and the weapons and equipment, and took control of the disputed areas after the withdrawal of the army," the Shiite leader charged.

Other drivers told similar accounts of abuse, saying that Kurds were being abused and beaten at Iraqi Army checkpoints as well.

“Even a (Iraqi army) captain did the same to us,” said one driver. “I saw them take two drivers who were ahead of me. They started hitting them with their Ak-47s. He cursed us (Kurds) one thousand times," he added. “I went through the checkpoints, but they took the other drivers.”

Drivers reported better treatment at checkpoints of the ISIS, whose fighters together with other rebels captured Mosul last week and are now near Baghdad.

“When one goes through ISIS checkpoints, they never say anything. But the Shiites insult you very much," recounted one driver.

Shiite leaders have issued a fatwa, or religious decree, calling on followers to take up arms against the ISIS threat. In response, thousands of Shiites from Iraq’s central and southern provinces have mobilized and joined their militias.

Iraq’s Sunni leaders have denounced the Fatwa, fearing it could open the gates to a war between Iraq’s majority Shiites and very large Sunni minority.

Meanwhile al-Iraqiya TV, which is close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malliki’s government, has seeming embarked on an anti-Kurdish campaign, accusing Kurdish leaders of cooperating with ISIS against the government in Baghdad.

This is the flag of Islam, for you cannot separate the Muslim league from Islam. Many people misunderstand us when we talk of Islam, particularly our Hindu friends. When we say this flag is the flag of Islam, they think that we are introducing religion into politics, A FACT OF WHICH WE ARE PROUD. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only a religion, but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam, we take it as an all embracing word.

- Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (11th January 1938)

Let us go back to our holy book, the Quran. Let us revert to the Hadeeth and the the great traditions of Islam which have everything in them for our guidance if we correctly interpret them and follow our great Holy book, the Quran.

- Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (6th March 1946)

"It is my strong belief, that there is no ideology which is more democratic, enlightened and progressive than Islam."

Stop twisting and lying. I never said, they are champions of social justice. I said, They are taking advantage of social injustice, bias of shia government in Baghdad. It is only your blindness, bias and hatred that makes it hard for you to understand.

You refuse to admit there is a problem with Shia priminister and his treatment of his fellow citizens who happen to have different views than he does.

But no, you will never admit to it because you are a hateful, blind follower of Aytollahs.

Show me one country in the Islamic world where there is no injustice. Can you?

I wont reply the rest because they are your own creation as I hardly could be categorized as religious or follower of Ayatollahs. Its you however that misrepresented the truth about Sistani calling for Jihad against Sunnis which is bogus because many Sunni clerics have joined Sistani.

As I said earlier. Only time will tell as was the case in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria, or as is the case in Syria, Libya and soon Iraq.

Not too long ago it was the same line of argument- alawi leader oppresses Sunnis. Turned out that the Sunni terrorists oppressed Sunnis million times more than the alawis could ever dream of. At least no Alawi ever kidnapped young Syrian girls- raped them and sent them back home pregnant. And soon those in Iraq who backed terrorists will get a taste of their medicine- starting with smokers.

Lastly, these sectarian groups havent in the past, and wont in future, be able to do a god damn thing to Shias, or Americans, or Christians, or Jews. They like other terrorist groups will make the lives of Sunnis a thousand time worse and harm them- Taliban harmed more Sunnis than Shias. Alqaida harmed more Sunnis than Americans or Jews. Nusra harmed more Sunnis than alawis or jews...etc etc

It's not the mountains ahead, that wear you out...It's the grain of sand in your shoe.

You look at things from a sectarian point of view and me in a humanitarian. And I am the hateful one? For every 5 anti-Shia responses of yours if you can find one anti-Sunni response from me or anything else for that matter then ban me.

It's not the mountains ahead, that wear you out...It's the grain of sand in your shoe.

You are so self consumed and biased that you dont even know what you are talking about.

Again, your counter argument against injustice is injustice for more injustice, hate for more hate. Same thing Israelis do. You are just proving my point over and over again.

You call yourself humanitarian, If you are humanitarian then Mousalini and Hitler were saints.

Because I have never heard, read or seen a humanitarian who justifies tyranny, injustice and racism by pointing fingers at other countries and what happens there.

You play victim but you vouch for the oppressors. You claim to be humanitarian but if you have choice, you will force and convert into what you believe.....I know humanitarians and you my friend is no humanitarian.

Walk away if you want toit's ok, if you need toyou can run, but you can never hideFrom the shadow that's creeping up beside youThere's a magic running through your soulBut you can't have it all

Seizure of 160 computer flash sticks revealed the inside story of Isis, the band of militants that came from nowhere with nothing to having Syrian oil fields and control of Iraq's second city

Martin Chulov in Baghdad

Members of the Kurdish armed fighting force look out over Jalula in northern Iraq, where they have been fighting Isis. Photograph: Rick Findler

Two days before Mosul fell to the Islamic insurgent group Isis (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), Iraqi commanders stood eyeballing its most trusted messenger. The man, known within the extremist group as Abu Hajjar, had finally cracked after a fortnight of interrogation and given up the head of Isis's military council.

"He said to us, 'you don't realise what you have done'," an intelligence official recalled. "Then he said: 'Mosul will be an inferno this week'.'

Several hours later, the man he had served as a courier and been attempting to protect, Abdulrahman al-Bilawi, lay dead in his hideout near Mosul. From the home of the dead man and the captive, Iraqi forces hoovered up more than 160 computer flash sticks which contained the most detailed information yet known about the terror group.

The treasure trove included names and noms de guerre of all foreign fighters, senior leaders and their code words, initials of sources inside ministries and full accounts of the group's finances.

"We were all amazed and so were the Americans," a senior intelligence official told the Guardian. "None of us had known most of this information."

Officials, including CIA officers, were still decrypting and analysing the flash sticks when Abu Hajjar's prophecy was realised. Isis swept through much of northern and central Iraq over three stunning days, seizing control of Mosul and Tikrit and threatening Kirkuk as three divisions of the Iraqi army shed their uniforms and fled.

The capitulation of the military and the rapid advances of the insurgents have dramatically changed the balance of power in Iraq, crippled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, allowed Kurdish forces to seize control of the disputed city of Kirkuk and galvanised a Shia fightback along sectarian lines, posing a serious threat to the region's fragile geopolitics. On Sunday Isis published photographs that appeared to show it capturing and killing dozens of Iraqi soldiers.

"By the end of the week, we soon realised that we had to do some accounting for them," said the official flippantly. "Before Mosul, their total cash and assets were $875m [£515m]. Afterwards, with the money they robbed from banks and the value of the military supplies they looted, they could add another $1.5bn to that."

Laid bare were a series of staggering numbers that would be the pride of any major enterprise, let alone an organisation that was a startup three years ago.

The group's leaders had been meticulously chosen. Many of those who reported to the top tier – all battle-hardened veterans of the insurgency against US forces nearly a decade ago – did not know the names of their colleagues. The strategic acumen of Isis was impressive – so too its attention to detail. "They had itemised everything," the source said. "Down to the smallest detail."

Over the past year, foreign intelligence officials had learned that Isis secured massive cashflows from the oilfields of eastern Syria, which it had commandeered in late 2012, and some of which it had sold back to the Syrian regime. It was also known to have reaped windfalls from smuggling all manner of raw materials pillaged from the crumbling state, as well as priceless antiquities from archaeological digs.

But here before them in extraordinary detail were accounts that would have breezed past forensic accountants, giving a full reckoning of a war effort. It soon became clear that in less than three years, Isis had grown from a ragtag band of extremists to perhaps the most cash-rich and capable terror group in the world.

"They had taken $36m from al-Nabuk alone [an area in the Qalamoun mountains west of Damascus]. The antiquities there are up to 8,000 years old," the intelligence official said. "Before this, the western officials had been asking us where they had gotten some of their money from, $50,000 here, or $20,000 there. It was peanuts. Now they know and we know. They had done this all themselves. There was no state actor at all behind them, which we had long known. They don't need one."

The scale of Isis's resources seems to have prepared it for the improbable. But even by its ruthless standards, occupying two major cities in Iraq in three days, holding on to parts of Falluja and Ramadi, and menacing Kirkuk and Samara, was quite an accomplishment.

Social media postings throughout last week revealed the group's shock at its successes. Some posting showed extremists weeping with joy as dozens of Iraqi army humvess were driven through a sand berm on the border into Syria.

Foreign jihadists, many from Europe, were among those who stormed into Mosul and have spread through central Iraq ever since. Most of their names were already known to the intelligence agencies which had tried to track their movements after they arrived in Turkey, then disappeared, initially across the Syrian border. But noms de guerre given to the new arrivals had left their trails cold. Now officials had details of next of kin, and often phone numbers and emails.

Whether the intelligence haul can do much to reel in Isis after the fact seems a moot point, with the group having already wrought so much carnage in such a short time. "We will eventually find them," said the Iraqi official. "We knew they had infiltrated the ministries and the most frustrating thing about that flash [stick] was it only had initials. We are focusing on the initials that had the annotation 'valuable' next to them."

Other names were clearly of lesser use, he said. They were marked with "lazy", "undecided" or "needs monitoring".

More than ever before is now known about how Isis has gathered steam. The past week has also been an advanced education in its capabilities and ambitions. "Now we have to catch up with them," the official said.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

Tehran hints at cooperation with US to aid Nouri al-Maliki as jihadist group threatens to take Baghdad

Martin Chulov in Baghdad, and agencies

Iraqi security forces and volunteers on the outskirts of Diyala province. Photograph: Reuters

Iran has sent 2,000 advance troops to Iraq in the past 48 hours to help tackle a jihadist insurgency, a senior Iraqi official has told the Guardian.

The confirmation comes as the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said Iran was ready to support Iraq from the mortal threat fast spreading through the country, while the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, called on citizens to take up arms in their country's defence.

Addressing the country on Saturday, Maliki said rebels from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) had given "an incentive to the army and to Iraqis to act bravely". His call to arms came after reports surfaced that hundreds of young men were flocking to volunteer centres across Baghdad to join the fight against Isis.

In Iran, Rouhani raised the prospect of Teheran cooperating with its old enemy Washington to defeat the Sunni insurgent group – which is attempting to ignite a sectarian war beyond Iraq's borders.

The Iraqi official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border into the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province, in central Iraq on Friday, while another 500 had entered the Badra Jassan area in Wasat province overnight. The Guardian confirmed on Friday that Major General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, had arrived in Baghdad to oversee the defence of the capital.

There is growing evidence in Baghdad of Shia militias continuing to reorganise, with some heading to the central city of Samarra, 70 miles (110km) north of the capital, to defend two Shia shrines from Sunni jihadist groups surrounding them.

The volunteers signing up were responding to a call by Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, the Iranian-born grand ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to defend their country after Isis seized Mosul and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit in a lightning advance this week. Samarra is now the next town in the Islamists' path to Baghdad.

"Citizens who can carry weapons and fight the terrorists in defence of their country, its people and its holy sites should volunteer and join the security forces," Sheik Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalaie, Sistani's representative, said on Friday in a sermon at the holy Shia city of Kerbala.

He warned that Iraq faced great danger and that fighting the militants "is everybody's responsibility, and is not limited to one specific sect or group", Associated Press reported. Karbalaie's comments have consistently been thought to reflect Sistani's views.

Meanwhile, Iraqi troops had been ordered out of the northern city of Kirkuk by Kurdish fighters who have taken full control of the regional oil hub and surrounding areas, according to a mid-ranking army officer.

His account was corroborated by an Arab tribal sheik and a photographer who witnessed the looting of army bases after troops left and who related similar accounts of the takeover from relatives in the army, the Associated Press reported.

"They said they would defend Kirkuk from the Islamic State [Isis]," said the Arab officer, who oversaw a warehouse in the city's central military base.

He insisted the Iraqi troops had not planned to retreat before the Islamic State. "We were ready to battle to death. We were completely ready," he said at a roadside rest house just inside the semi-autonomous Kurdish region.

A spokesman for Kurdish forces, known as the peshmerga, said they had only moved in after Iraqi troops retreated, assuming control of the "majority of the Kurdistan region" outside the semi-autonomous Kurdish regional government.

"Peshmerga forces have helped Iraqi soldiers and military leaders when they abandoned their positions," including by helping three generals to fly back to Baghdad from the Kurdish regional capital of Erbil, said Lieutenant General Jabbar Yawar in a statement on the regional government's website.

A supporter of Maliki in the Iraqi parliament condemned the peshmerga's move, calling it a plot carried out in co-ordination with the regional government that would lead to problems.

"The Kurds have taken advantage of the current situation. They seized Kirkuk and they have other plans to swallow other areas," Mohammed Sadoun said.

A colonel from the military command responsible for Samarra said Iraqi security forces were preparing a counter-offensive against Isis on Saturday. The colonel, whom Maliki announced had been granted "unlimited powers" by the Iraqi cabinet, said reinforcements from the federal police and army arrived on Friday, according to Agence France-Presse.

The officer said the reinforcements were for a drive against areas north of the city, including Dur and Tikrit, and forces were awaiting orders to begin.

Sunni residents of west Baghdad said on Saturday Shia militias had taunted them with anti-Sunni chants. Baghdad has remained in virtual lockdown for the past three days as Isis jihadists threatened to storm the capital. However, Saturday morning saw relative normality return to deserted streets, with many residents returning to shops to stockpile supplies.

Residents offered little reaction to Barack Obama's statement late on Friday in which he appeared to condition renewed US military support on Iraqi leaders first making efforts to pull the country back from the brink. The US and Iran, foes throughout the US occupation of Iraq, share a common interest in defeating Isis, and Iran has so far expressed no opposition to US threats to send military support to Maliki.

Rouhani, asked at a televised press conference on Saturday whether Tehran could work with the US to tackle Isis, said: "We can think about it if we see America starts confronting the terrorist groups in Iraq or elsewhere. We all should practically and verbally confront terrorist groups."

Reuters reported US officials as saying there were no contacts taking place with Iran over the crisis in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, had held talks with his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, "urgently to co-ordinate approaches to the instability in Iraq and links to Syria conflict", he said on Twitter. Britain is to give £3m ($5.1m) of aid to Iraq as the first step in dealing with the humanitarian consequences of the insurgency.

The international development secretary, Justine Greening, said the initial tranche of emergency funding would allow agencies to supply water, sanitation, medicine, hygiene kits and basic household items.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

A second war ship, carrying marines and tilt-rotor aircraft, has entered the Gulf.

The USS Mesa Verde, an amphibious dock ship, is carrying 550 Marines, as well as MV-22 Osprey aircraft capable of quickly moving up to 22 marines at a time over long distances, AFP reported.

"It's presence in the Gulf adds to that of other US naval ships already there - including the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush - and provides the commander-in-chief additional options to protect American citizens and interests in Iraq, should he choose to use them," Rear Admiral John Kirby said.

It followed the carrier USS George H.W. Bush, which entered the Gulf over the weekend with two warships armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles: the destroyer USS Truxton and the cruiser USS Philippines Sea.

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

Hakim Bey: Don't just survive while waiting for someone's revolution to clear your head
Napoleon Bonaparte: The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!

ISTANBUL, TURKEY — A transnational jihadist group now controls a swath of territory across northern Iraq and Syria, creating a de facto Sunni Islamic “caliphate” in its wake as it pushes south toward the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

The group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) endangered the oil refinery of Baiji and yesterday seized Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, 80 miles northwest of Baghdad. The advances came just a day after ISIS shocked observers by easily taking full control of Mosul, one of Iraq’s largest cities, where Iraqi soldiers trained and equipped by the US shed their uniforms as they fled. On Thursday the militant group claimed to have surrounded Samarra, bringing it closer to Baghdad.

ISIS is dramatically changing the map, often seizing ground without a shot being fired, and working with other Sunni militants and Saddam-era military officers.

It is a “golden moment” for ISIS “because their whole idea is based on territory; every [captured] city becomes an emirate,” says Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics, an authority on Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups.

Al Qaeda outgrowth

ISIS is an outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which reached its peak amid the Iraqi civil war but was severely weakened by the time the US left in 2011. Al Qaeda in Iraq eventually broke with Pakistan-based Al Qaeda central and renamed itself the Islamic State in Iraq – stressing its intent to create a caliphate as soon as possible inside the country.

That effort failed, but the dream did not, and when the war against President Bashar al-Assad broke out, the group expanded its vision to become the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Disavowed earlier this year by Al Qaeda's central leadership for its brutality to local populations and fierce anti-Shiite sectarianism, ISIS gradually worked its way back across the border into Iraq, capitalizing on political and social divisions exacerbated for years by the heavy-handed sectarian rule of Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

“Al-Maliki’s authoritarian tactics, the way he has mismanaged both the security forces and the political system – his role is pivotal, in allowing [ISIS] space and shelter, and also in motivating, providing ammunition to disaffected Sunnis to join,” says Mr. Gerges.

Mr. Maliki has called on Iraqis to “regain the initiative” and said the fall of Mosul would be reversed. “Even if the battle is a long one, we will not let you [Iraqi citizens] down, because we are facing a ferocious terrorist campaign,” he said.

One draw for ISIS is the relative simplicity of its ideology, compared with other Islamists, says Hassan Hassan, an analyst at the Delma Institute in Abu Dhabi. “The fact that ISIL has already announced an ‘Islamic State’ that Muslims can join, and fight for its survival and expansion, appeals to a considerable number of people – even though its brutal tactics have alienated others,” writes Mr. Hassan in The National. “ISIL is quietly expanding its following in the villages and towns dotting the Iraqi-Syrian border mostly because of the perceived reality of an Islamic state."

Proximate enemies, proxy war

In contrast to Al Qaeda central and Yemen-based offshoot Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which have concentrated on distant enemies such as the US, ISIS and other jihadists in Syria and Iraq focus on proximate enemies, such as Mr. Assad and Maliki.

“Iraq right now is a proxy for Iran,” David Phillips, a former senior adviser to the US State Department, told the BBC. “Countries like Saudi Arabia, which oppose Iran’s influence, are supporting these extremist groups in order to limit Iraq’s power, and to try to put the brakes on Prime Minister Maliki’s grab for a third mandate as prime minister. So Iraq is a battleground between Sunni and Shia, as it has been all along.”

Their aim, said Mr. Phillips, is to use a caliphate that does not recognize formal borders as a “launching point for radicalization through the region."

For the fighters themselves, the idea of a national home is dissolving as they push for that broader Islamic state. There have been reports of some burning their passports in Syria.

“Everybody’s renouncing their affiliation with their countries, because we are now trying to establish the caliphate. … Our citizenship means nothing to us anymore,” a British foreign fighter by the name of Abu Sumayyah al-Britani said from the northern Syrian town of Idlib, in a May 25 broadcastof “The ISIS Show,” posted by EAWorldview.

Even the Syrians, the ISIS fighter said, are “distancing” themselves from their national identity. The porousness of the Syria-Iraq border – through which ISIS drove some of the US-made hardware it captured in Mosul into Syria – has reinforced that point. The Economist cites one estimate that ISIS has some 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000 to 5,000 in Syria, among them 3,000 foreigners.

Extreme violence stirs challenges

Although ISIS can draw on the "deep rift" between Sunnis and Shiites, their track record in Syria “shows how they are their own worst enemy," Gerges says. Any level of violence is acceptable because “these limited victories all accumulate to bring about the Islamic caliphate as a strategic goal," he explains.

The group's extreme violence in Syria – beheadings and public crucifixions, directed at rival Islamist rebel groups, as well as civilians and suspected “traitors" – prompted other Islamist groups to take them on. Their path mirrored that of Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, whose brutality spurred many Sunnis of Anbar Province to challenge them themselves, with US help.

Though gaining territory in Iraq, ISIS is already sowing the “seeds of their own self-destruction,” Gerges says. “The question is: How long will it take? And how much damage will it do in the meantime?”

The crisis, ironically, could be a wake-up call to unify Iraqis.

Maliki “is the leader, he is the strong man, he built himself up as the most qualified – in fact the only one – who could take [ISIS] on, and it exploded in his face,” adds Gerges. “That’s why there is hope … that this really scary, dangerous moment will serve as a catalyst to bring Iraqis together, to begin the process of reconciliation.”

The question here is, how ISIS went so unnoticed for a long time and became a huge monster?

I think it is just a beginning of much worse things to come.

The best way for Iraq to stay united and prosper is to get rid off Maliki and bring someone who has sense of nationalism and unity.

A person who see all the people living in Iraq despite their religion, ethnicity as equal citizens.

But I highly doubt if rulers in Iraq will learn anything from the recent turmoil. If you want to see the mentality of Ruling shias in Baghdad, look no further. Just read Hulegu Posts. This is the mentality these people have. They play victim to oppress others. They dont like to be oppressed but they like to oppress.

The Shia-Sunni strife will continue due to ancient hatred and sense of revenge that exists on both sides.

The end result is disaster for the region.

Walk away if you want toit's ok, if you need toyou can run, but you can never hideFrom the shadow that's creeping up beside youThere's a magic running through your soulBut you can't have it all

The question here is, how ISIS went so unnoticed for a long time and became a huge monster?

I think it is just a beginning of much worse things to come.

The best way for Iraq to stay united and prosper is to get rid off Maliki and bring someone who has sense of nationalism and unity.

A person who see all the people living in Iraq despite their religion, ethnicity as equal citizens.

But I highly doubt if rulers in Iraq will learn anything from the recent turmoil. If you want to see the mentality of Ruling shias in Baghdad, look no further. Just read Hulegu Posts. This is the mentality these people have. They play victim to oppress others. They dont like to be oppressed but they like to oppress.

The Shia-Sunni strife will continue due to ancient hatred and sense of revenge that exists on both sides.

The end result is disaster for the region.

Well put... I couldnt have said it better!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Everybody is entitled to my opinion!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make." -- Lord Farquaad, "Shrek"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------`Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.'------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary idea! G.Orwell------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are so self consumed and biased that you dont even know what you are talking about.

Again, your counter argument against injustice is injustice for more injustice, hate for more hate. Same thing Israelis do. You are just proving my point over and over again.

You call yourself humanitarian, If you are humanitarian then Mousalini and Hitler were saints.

Because I have never heard, read or seen a humanitarian who justifies tyranny, injustice and racism by pointing fingers at other countries and what happens there.

You play victim but you vouch for the oppressors. You claim to be humanitarian but if you have choice, you will force and convert into what you believe.....I know humanitarians and you my friend is no humanitarian.

I dont play victim. I dont justify tyranny. They are your own constructs. My point is that these shady terrorist organizations- funded by shady secret organizations from far off- use the prevalent injustice in Muslim world to wreak havoc. You however see these organization as the result of sectarian injustice in the Muslim world.

I say sect has got nothing in these issue but instead is used as a fuel to burn the fires of war. Say in Syria or Iraq it was because of sect, then what about Libya, Somalia, or Pakistan. The Iraqi war on terror is running on parellel tracks with the current Pakistani one on Pakistani-ISIS- TTP. From what I know there is no injustice against TTP or Sunnis in Pakistan.

Nusra = Alqaida = ISIS = TTP = ALshubab = Terrorism

These terrorists are funded, not to liberate or emancipate the Sunnis, but to gain geopolitical victories for their masters behind the curtain who most likely aint even Muslims.

It's not the mountains ahead, that wear you out...It's the grain of sand in your shoe.

Yaar please....ISIL is completely "Arabic".....a completely different organization active in the Levant region of Middle East. Comparing it to TTP and IMU is completely irrelevant. Altogether completely different regions with different demographics and politics....the only common denominator is the technique or method these groups share, which is terrorism.

ISIL terrorists are active in Iraq and Syria...it is in the freaking name of the organization itself....and in both of these countries they terrorists have exploited the injustices and brutal tactics of Maliki and Assad regime. So please stick to this region only as it is absolutely redundant to bring in other regions. You can not compare apples and oranges....yes both of them are fruits....but that's about it. Everything is else is different.

Libya, Somalia and Nigeria are completely different stories altogether bhai......that is not even the area of operations for the ISIL.

As the security situation in Iraq has been severely deteriorating, news was posted on June 13 claiming that Shiite cleric Ali Sistani has issued a call to arms to confront the Sunni rebelion in the west and north of Iraq. Yet these reports are unfounded, and contradict the nationalist, humanitarian, and nonsectarian principles adopted by Sistani.

Sistani has only issued one official statement regarding the recent incidents; it was posted on June 11 on his official website.

“[Sistani] is following up on the recent security developments in the provinces of Ninevah and surrounding areas with great concern. He stresses the need for the Iraqi government and the rest of the political leadership to unify their rhetoric and join efforts to face the terrorists and protect the citizens from these evil acts, and to reiterate its support for the people in the armed forces and encourages them to be patient and determined in the face of the aggressors,” the statement read.

On June 13 during the Friday sermon, preachers encouraged those capable to take up arms and volunteer with security forces to fight terrorism.

Sheikh Abdel Mahdi Karbalai, the official spokesman for Sistani, was one of these preachers.

Karbalai, however, did not mention anything related to jihad and did not call on Shiites to fight Sunnis.

He instead said that “everyone needs to get prepared morally and physically to confront the enemies.”

Al-Monitor contacted a prominent figure in Sistani’s office to verify statements that local and international websites attributed to him. The figure said the news was inaccurate, and clarified Sistani's stance:

First, we called on those who are able to take up arms to volunteer, provided that they do so under the auspices of security agencies, and only in a legal way.

Second, volunteering is a public duty that aims to fill the shortage security agencies are facing in order to fight the enemies. Volunteering is not for everybody and is used according to need. Also, school and college students should stay away from this issue and dedicate their time to education.

Third, volunteering should be legally and meticulously governed to avoid chaos and illegal acts, such as granting militias a role.

Sistani’s office later issued a statement asking “all citizens, specially in the mixed areas where Sunnis and Shiites exist together, to exercise the highest degree of restraint and work on strengthening the bonds of love between each other, and to avoid any kind of sectarian behavior that may affect the unity of the Iraqi nation and all kind of armed manifestations outside of the official Iraqi army."

Moreover, Sistani’s office officially asked the TV channels to remove his photo from their programs and reports and put the Iraq map up instead to remind people of the unity of Iraq.

Two parties to the conflict aim to transform the current situation into a sectarian confrontation. The first group is made up of Sunni extremists, including armed groups and religious figures. The second group is composed of Shiite extremists, including Shiite militias and their supporters. Furthermore, external groups that are supportive of this sectarian inclination have begun to support it and expand its scope.

Religious figures are also divided over this issue: Some called for unification and the refusal of sectarian strife, while others took on extremist views, calling for violence. Sistani represents the flag bearer of the first view, which is also supported by prominent Shiite religious figures such as Sayyed Hassan Sadr. The latter issued a statement calling on politicians to unify their visions and take decisions opposed to the concept of sectarian and ethnic quotas. He also called for holding a comprehensive conference to take a unified decision based on a meticulous analysis of the true nature of the situation.

On the Sunni side, Sheikh Ahmed Kabisi has since 2003 been criticizing the terrorist acts in Iraq and supporting the political process in the country. On June 10, Kabisi issued a fatwa calling for mobilization against all terrorist groups taking control of a number of Iraqi regions, and granting the status of martyr to whoever dies confronting them.

It is worth noting the importance and necessity of the national stance taken by these clerics, as they are able to prevent the collapse of the country into a sectarian war. This time, if such a war erupts, the circle of its repercussions will be much wider than in June 2006 and 2007, especially if we take into consideration the considerable capacities of terrorist groups and the failure of the government to achieve national reconciliation.

Radical Sunni fighters, who seized another northern Iraqi city on Monday, are being aided by local tribes who reject the Islamists' extreme ideology but sympathize with their goal of ousting the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

The uneasy alliance helps explain how several hundred insurgents from Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham, or ISIS, have handily defeated a far larger, better-equipped Iraqi army and come to control about a third of Iraqi territory.

Sunni tribal leaders say mistreatment by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has sparked protests and militancy among their ranks that created fertile ground for the al Qaeda offshoot to emerge victorious.

"This is a revolution against the unfairness and marginalization of the past 11 years," said Sheikh Khamis Al Dulaimi, a tribal leader in the Anbar Military Council of Tribal Revolutionaries, a group that has led protests against Mr. Maliki for the past year and a half.

Officials from the U.S. and Iran, which both back the Maliki government, signaled Monday a willingness to work together to halt ISIS's momentum—though with no military coordination, the White House stressed—during talks in Vienna over Tehran's nuclear program.

President Barack Obama formally notified Congress on Monday that he would send up to 275 U.S. military personnel to Baghdad "to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad." Mr. Obama last week also said the U.S. was considering other steps, including airstrikes.

The developments came after the insurgents seized the northwestern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, sparking an outflow of residents. The city was being guarded by a U.S.-trained Iraqi commander who had aimed to amass troops there and mount a counteroffensive to reclaim the city of Mosul from the rebels, said Iraqi military officials.

Last week, as militants advanced from the northern city of Mosul down the Tigris River toward Baghdad, many local Sunnis greeted them as liberators, feted them and cheered in the streets.

But as those insurgents bump against the geographical boundaries where Iraq's Sunnis are a majority, some tribesmen are reconsidering how to handle their allies of convenience. Aside from boasting of a mass execution of its enemies this week, the jihadist fighters have begun enforcing austere Islamic law at gunpoint, Iraqi officials say, in their effort create an Islamic empire, or caliphate, stretching across the boundaries of Syria and Iraq.

The tribesmen worry about Syria next door, where ISIS members are battling other Islamist fighters who are trying to oust President Bashar al-Assad's government.

"We're terrified of them. They are a problem. But we have to have priorities," said Sheikh Bashar al-Faidhi, a senior member of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a relatively moderate group of Sunni leaders that played a prominent role in resisting the U.S. occupation after 2003. "We are going to fight ISIS. But not now."

Although most observers say ISIS fighters played the dominant role in the quick military strikes last week, local Sunni politicians are taking credit for aiding the rebellion, saying the ISIS offensive was only a small part of a larger rebellion against the Maliki government that has been brewing for years.

"We don't deny that ISIS is fighting, but they are not more than 5%," Mr. Dulaimi said. "This is an Iraqi revolution."

Many Iraqi leaders now credit a Sunni-led anti-Maliki protest movement that raged in Iraq's western provinces since December 2011 for laying the groundwork for ISIS's military victories.

The protests, which were largely peaceful, aimed to roll back policies that many Sunnis claimed were discriminatory, such as an antiterrorism law that allowed law enforcement to round up thousands of Sunnis and anti-Baathist legislation that let the government disenfranchise suspected members of the former Sunni-led regime.

The prime minister's office has said that the often harsh measures are necessary to combat a worsening terrorist threat.

The protest movement was led in large part by Sunni tribesmen who say they don't identify with extremist Islam. In some cases, they included military leaders and loyalists of former President Saddam Hussein's ousted regime.

Still, their antipathy for Mr. Maliki's government has led them to support ISIS—at least temporarily.

"For Sunnis on the ground, Maliki is still seen as a bigger threat," said Nathaniel Rabkin, managing editor of Inside Iraqi Politics, a political newsletter, and an expert on the Sunni tribal network. "Given how angry so many Sunnis are about the government's policies, it makes more sense to try to own this insurgency than to disown it."

Mr. Faidhi, for example, said ISIS forces are problematic but not one that Sunni resistance fighters should actively confront as long as they are fighting a common enemy. "We're fighting against a regime backed by the United States, Iran and even Russia," Mr. Faidhi said. "The revolutionary resistance has few arms. They are fighting my enemies, as well. So why should I fight them?"

Opposition to ISIS rule could grow as the group settles in and steps up enforcement of its austere version of Islam, Mr. Rabkin said. The group has already announced some rules that are likely to offend even the most conservative Iraqis: Amputations as a punishment for theft, harsh punishments for cigarette smoking and injunctions against shrines and even grave-markers that are common in western Iraq.

But pursuing such lofty goals immediately would be foolhardy, said Mr. Rabkin. After all, the residents of Aleppo, which is Syria's second-biggest city, kicked ISIS out early this year, something he said could be repeated in Iraq. And it was angry residents of western Iraq who turned on al Qaeda-linked forces during the U.S.-backed "Awakening" movement of 2007 and 2008.

For now, Iraq's Sunnis will have to weigh two undesirable options: Life under Mr. Maliki's army or a frightening Islamist militia.

"The Iraqi official channels are exaggerating ISIS's role" in the fighting, said Abdelrazeq Al Shimmari, the head of a anti-Maliki protest group based in western Iraq. "But personally, I would say I'm with any solution with any party that can bring me salvation even if it was the devil."

This is the flag of Islam, for you cannot separate the Muslim league from Islam. Many people misunderstand us when we talk of Islam, particularly our Hindu friends. When we say this flag is the flag of Islam, they think that we are introducing religion into politics, A FACT OF WHICH WE ARE PROUD. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only a religion, but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam, we take it as an all embracing word.

- Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (11th January 1938)

Let us go back to our holy book, the Quran. Let us revert to the Hadeeth and the the great traditions of Islam which have everything in them for our guidance if we correctly interpret them and follow our great Holy book, the Quran.

- Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (6th March 1946)

"It is my strong belief, that there is no ideology which is more democratic, enlightened and progressive than Islam."

Helugu is just another Mullah an apposite of extremists on the other side. For him, every shia organization, government or in general his sect are the best people. Everybody who is not shia is lesser and most likely evil and hell bound. I dont see any use in arguing with this mullah kid. He has already proved my point why this problem of sectarianism will never be resolved. It will continue to be used to further weaken the region. No one benefits from it locally at least.

Walk away if you want toit's ok, if you need toyou can run, but you can never hideFrom the shadow that's creeping up beside youThere's a magic running through your soulBut you can't have it all

President Obama’s decision to send up to 275 troops to the American embassy in Baghdad might only delay a future in which Iraq splits into three different countries, separated along religious and ethnic lines.

Late Monday, Obama notified Congress that he was sending additional security personnel -- 100 Special Operations Forces to the American outpost in Baghdad, where some 5,000 people work. These troops join 160 troops who are already there, including 50 Marines and some 100 Army soldiers.

Obama has placed an additional 100 troops in a nearby country, ready to assist in Baghdad as needed. These troops can quickly travel to the Iraqi capitol to shore up American defenses if the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) moves to capture Baghdad.

The prospect of Iraq breaking apart would be a body blow to American foreign policy cultivated over the last decade and a half. Americans have invested more than a trillion dollars—and thousands of American lives—in a stable Iraq.

Obama’s decision is also a reflection of just how quickly the security situation in Baghdad has degenerated. Ten days ago, ISIS was largely contained in southern Syria. Now, militants from the group are on the outskirts of the Iraqi capital.

The possibility that Iraq could split into three separate territories, all with different goals, is developing quickly. In the country’s northeast, Kurdish Peshmerga have taken control of Kirkuk, creating a front against ISIS while moving one step closer to the Kurds long-held dream of an oil-producing independent Kurdish state. Iran has pledged to assist Shiites in central Iraq to hold their territory. In northwest Iraq, ISIS appears determined to advance on Baghdad.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has opened a line of dialogue with Iran, a Shiite majority country, as prominent Iraqi Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has called for his followers to take up arms against the Sunni ISIS.

Kerry said that the United States would consider “a very thorough vetting of every option that is available…when you have people murdering, assassinating in these mass massacres, you have to stop that—from the air or otherwise,” Kerry told Yahoo global anchor Katie Couric in an interview Monday.

“I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive,” Kerry added.

Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby tempered Kerry’s comments. Kirby said the United States has “no intentions, no plans to coordinate military activities with Iran.”

Volunteer fighters clean their weapons following a call to arms by Shiite authorities. Photo: AFP

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Kurdish taxi drivers shuttling between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad report abuse and beatings by Shiite militias and the Iraqi military because of their ethnicity, amid turmoil in Iraq as Sunni Islamic militants nearing Baghdad vow to topple the government.

Taxi drivers reported being abused and threatened by Shiite militants of the Iranian-backed Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous), and by Iraqi Army soldiers.

"I returned from Baghdad two days ago, they (Asa’ib) put a gun to my head, asking if we were Kurds,” recounted a driver from Erbil. “They told us, ‘if you ever come back, we will kill you,’ and then he started cursing us and our leaders.”

In a televised speech about the security situation in Iraq, the leader of the Asa’ib, Qais al-Khazali, blamed the current turmoil on an alleged plot hatched by the Kurds, militants of the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and loyalists of Saddam Hussein’s ousted regime.

"The Kurdish leaders seized the headquarters of the army and the weapons and equipment, and took control of the disputed areas after the withdrawal of the army," the Shiite leader charged.

Other drivers told similar accounts of abuse, saying that Kurds were being abused and beaten at Iraqi Army checkpoints as well.

“Even a (Iraqi army) captain did the same to us,” said one driver. “I saw them take two drivers who were ahead of me. They started hitting them with their Ak-47s. He cursed us (Kurds) one thousand times," he added. “I went through the checkpoints, but they took the other drivers.”

Drivers reported better treatment at checkpoints of the ISIS, whose fighters together with other rebels captured Mosul last week and are now near Baghdad.

“When one goes through ISIS checkpoints, they never say anything. But the Shiites insult you very much," recounted one driver.

Shiite leaders have issued a fatwa, or religious decree, calling on followers to take up arms against the ISIS threat. In response, thousands of Shiites from Iraq’s central and southern provinces have mobilized and joined their militias.

Iraq’s Sunni leaders have denounced the Fatwa, fearing it could open the gates to a war between Iraq’s majority Shiites and very large Sunni minority.

Meanwhile al-Iraqiya TV, which is close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malliki’s government, has seeming embarked on an anti-Kurdish campaign, accusing Kurdish leaders of cooperating with ISIS against the government in Baghdad.

Walk away if you want toit's ok, if you need toyou can run, but you can never hideFrom the shadow that's creeping up beside youThere's a magic running through your soulBut you can't have it all